Death being the end is only depressing if you did not live a fulfilled life. What is wrong with death if you obtain satisfaction within life? I can think of nothing wrong with that. Furthermore, atheism does not automatically mean they disbelieve in life after death. Most atheists do not believe in life after death, but some believe in reincarnation or becoming one with the universe or earth, or similar concepts.

If the problem is truly so basic that you literally do not understand the "words that are coming out of my mouth" (so to speak), then honestly it might not be worth the effort to attempt to continue this all the way to its conclusion. For a while now -- shit, months? -- it's seemed as if we're trying to find each other through a fog by the sound of our voices, but the fog is playing tricks with the sound and we may be a hundred miles apart.

I'll use the main problem you refer to as a test case.
That is to say, why should you be asking what knowledge I think is neccessary to justify belief? I just don't get it. I think about how I've posed my position as stating that justification is meaningless, thus there can be no 'process' (justification) for turning belief to knowledge, and that knowledge must simply be given to an individual for him to have knowledge (this being the conclusion, of course, stating revelation as an answer to epistemology). I think about all that in relation what you're asking there and I just don't know what you could possibly mean in addressing it to my position (and in a way, I'm not necessarily sure I know what it means by itself).

It was my understanding that you asserted that justification was meaningless BECAUSE:

Your position is that in order to "justify" any belief as knowledge one would have to have knowledge with which to justify that belief.

So, in that case* it would follow that justification "begs the question" of knowledge and is meaningless if one is in the position of not having knowledge in the first place.

However, it is my position that in certain cases preexisting knowedge is NOT necessary for justification. (I've attempted to explain the reasoning for that position, but let's get to that later.)

So, in that case** your objection of meaninglessness (as described above) does not apply.

What is wrong so far? (Firstly, is there anything you don't understand of my statement of your position and its consequence; or, if you believe that you understand my statement of your position and its consequence but that I am mistaken about one or both (or have left out crucial parts), then how so? Secondly, if the first is OK, is there anything you don't understand of my position and its consequence?)

* IF YOU ARE CORRECT

** IF I AM CORRECT

I agree, save the very first part. I think it's something to address, in the view that you really only live this one life, whether or not a person is satisfied with the mere notion that their life will end. Certainly it's possible a person can be satisfied with their life and simply 'accept' their inevitable death eternal but I think if one considers or rather, imagines, the possibility of continuing a good life, a happy life, more 'fulfillment', the inescapable awareness of the end, negating this possibility, would be extremely depressing. But hey, if you resign yourself to it and ignore such wishes and hopes, no emotional problem.

And of course it's a total emotional point. Certain doesn't mean anything other than that.

Atheism also seems bad to me because when you think about it religion sometimes holds people back from doing wrong things because there are tons of rules and whatnot. If someone is an atheist they might not see as much is wrong and not feel bad about doing some bad things. That's why I believe it's better to have a religion than no religion at all. Even if it's not my own. Mine is Christianity(not catholic or any other form just believe what is in the bible).

I agree there are some people who fall under this catagory. The only flaw to your logic is that the majority of crimes and wars in our history is due to religion. I believe in a god and an afterlife. I also believe there are many stages of existance between us and whatever god is. Beleifs are great things that I believe most people need to keep to themselves as long as noone is bothering them or asking them about it. However, I believe religion is a bad thing. Any relegion is a cult. It's a group of people brainwashed by someone they think is "above" them. True faith is within yourself. Don't believe something just because it's in a book or because someone tells you so.

Also, to anyone who believes there is no god or anything else after this life, remember something put us here. Something started the big bang. You may chose not to call it god, but I do. That doesn't mean I believe there is an old man on the moon watching everything we do.

1. “Your position is that in order to "justify" any belief as knowledge one would have to have knowledge with which to justify that belief.”

   Not quite. The way you’re posing my position sounds like I’m still acknowledging justification represents some real/applicable concept in epistemology and that I’m saying it just happens to be impossible to achieve.
   What I’m trying to communicate is that justification in epistemology amounts to “establishing” that which it already essentially is. This is contrary to establishing that which it was not – and notice this is the only sense in which “establishing” holds any meaning in the first place. That is to say, if something is already what it is, then setting out to establishing it as such is ‘meaningless’.
   As with the example of rationalism: The premises already literally contain the information we have in the logical conclusion. Such a logical argument is only a mere demonstration of the implicative relationship set between the propositions we deem “premises” and the proposition we deem the “conclusion”.
   It is totally against the epistemological hope vested in “justification” to start where you want to end. Yet that’s what justification essentially would mean for epistemology. Thus this is why I say justification is meaningless for epistemology.
   In epistemology we have that concept of belief (a position without an set truth value – something dubitable) and the concept of knowledge (a position with a set truth value – that which is indubitable), but “justification” could only have meant starting with knowledge to get back to knowledge (essentially including the same knowledge – as in the example of rationalism) – Thus the elusive concept of “justification” in epistemology clearly does not have anything to do with starting with belief and process it’s way to knowledge - Of which was the epistemological hope vested in “justification”. Justification is not an applicable concept in the epistemological manner of moving belief to the status of knowledge. It is in that sense, meaningless.
   With the concept of knowledge, there are no distinct parts to gather together in which you could then call an act of ‘establishing’. This is what I meant previously when I said that knowledge is something fundamental.
   Not to be annoying but just to take the opportunity on the current clarity and relate this to the ‘hypothetical’ answer of revelation: As there is not a [logically necessary] process in our possession by which to morph that which is dubitable to that which is indubitable, revelation (having that which is indubitable given to you from that which has it) would of course be an answer without a [logically necessary] problem, as simplistic as it may come off after so much ramble.

   I feel I’ve written more clearly here than I have before. I would beseech you to carefully examine what I’m setting forth in specific consideration to the definitions (the meanings) compared to the way you’ve been using the words throughout in your position, as I feel the confusion comes in being somewhat vague and general with these meanings.
   Not as an indictment but right when I felt we were nearing some clarity before I noticed you introduced the term “absolute belief” again and I personally think that’s a direct result of having to plant a troubled ambiguity elsewhere as the use of our terms were becoming more isolated.

 
2. “However, it is my position that in certain cases preexisting knowedge is NOT necessary for justification. (I've attempted to explain the reasoning for that position, but let's get to that later.)”

   I understand you’re using this formulation of words to represent your position, so in that sense I understand. But making sense of them together in my mind in consideration of their meaning – we call it your ‘‘reasoning’’ (and your application of it to an example) – I don’t understand.
   I put the word reasoning in quotations to make the point that this ‘‘argument’’ is one of an analytical nature (meaning of words, the whole ‘‘realm of the mind’’ thing) wherein we are actually trying to explain clearly the relationship and implications between meanings of certain words. It’s not an argument in the sense that we’re battling over a particular view of something in reality and dealing with non-analytical conclusions. Hence why our accusations on this main issue are coming in the form of confusion, ambiguity, and meaninglessness, as opposed to something like “no that’s just not true, look it up in book X”.

   The only thing I’ve been inclined to suppose so far on the ‘reasoning’ and principle you posed here is that it’s sophistry - a maneuver of words guided by vagueness or ambiguity. So in that sense I’m still waiting to understand what you mean fully.
   I don’t mean to tell you my “inclination” for any other purpose than further clarifying my problem with your position and hoping to inspire a meticulous bout of clarity. (I think around 90% of philosophy is living because of sophistry, so my explanation of inclining to believe your position is ‘sophistry’ isn’t suppose to come off as some insulting, grave accusation.)

1. Eh, "right" and "wrong" are defined by the doctrine of the religion. If we're concerned about ethics which are "harmful" or not I would say the doctrine of certain religions (e.g. Christianity), for the most part, mandate a more peaceful conduct and so a more peaceful society.

The history of wars for religions in which their doctrines mandate peaceful conduct must be dismissed as hypocrisy and so nothing to do with the religion itself but rather the false/mistaken adherents. (Note I'm certainly not saying all religions mandate peaceful conduct.)

Further... I must say, I really would wonder how much war in history could be accredited as territorial, conquest, or other reasons as opposed to religion. I mean there have certainly been some incredibly large wars in our recent history that really did not have a specific basis in theology. I'm thinking political ordeals like with communism and fascism etc. Religions only mandate whatever their doctrines mandate. Whatever else you may blame on people.

2. Religion is a word that, for the most part, refers to a body of doctrine: meaning beliefs usually about God, gods, the supernatural, the afterlife, etc. But religion almost always includes other doctrines that touch upon politics, ethics, other areas of metaphysics, and so forth. In this sense any belief you have about this life might be called a religion if it is merely incorporated into a body of other beliefs and people agree with you. The word "religion" is not important though. Just recognize that you have beliefs that are on an "equal playing field" with any other beliefs.

3. Realize your statement: "beliefs are great as long as people are keeping them to themselves and not being bothered about them from anyone else" is a belief also. Specifically it's an ethical one. It appears you're imposing it or suggesting it to the world. And I'm afraid mandating this "tolerance" is truly intolerant - since many religions (or any belief system) carry the doctrine to spread their faith and proselytize - or to simply impose in some way. Telling them they can't do it is telling them they can't believe and practice their religion in this way.

Ultimately meaning... there will be no peace between ourselves on this earth until we all happen to believe the same body of doctrine (call it religion or whatever). As it stands now, there's really no universal appeal to be made to all mankind. Many religions and belief systems are immutable set apart as enemies of each other.

4. You do realize that telling me to "not believe something because someone tells me" is... telling me to believe something, right?

Religion is not why people feel bad for doing bad things, empathy does that for most people. What would you rather have people feel bad for, would you want them to feel bad because they caused harm and can relate, or would you want them to feel bad because they disobeyed a man in the sky?

I agree though, religion can help mentally off people stop themselves from doing bad things, and I call them mentally off because if you need a man in the sky to be a good person, there's something wrong with you. But it can also aid mentally off people, if they get some complex where they think they're above mans judgement.

Religion is not needed for some unproven sense of future punishment for wrong actions, the concept of karma can do that as well.

Also, many religions have rules and guidelines that are against the individuals best interests, and the interests of society as a whole. For example... You believe in the bible... Which parts? The parts where homosexuality and eating shellfish is deemed an abomination? The parts where it says you should be killed for cursing your parents? The parts where it implies women are supposed to be subserviant? The parts where it explains how to properly sacrifice animals?

Also, if you believe in the bible, why bother trying to make the world a better place? Why give any care to the environment? After all, the environment doesn't matter, Jesus is going to come back and make everything better. Why try to stop animal cruelty? God gave man dominion over animals. Why stop slavery? The bible explains how to properly care for slaves, it must be okay.

Do you really believe in the bible or just the parts you like? Many harmful worldviews and rules can be obtained out of the bible.

"What I’m trying to communicate is that justification in epistemology amounts to “establishing” that which it already essentially is. This is contrary to establishing that which it was not – and notice this is the only sense in which “establishing” holds any meaning in the first place. That is to say, if something is already what it is, then setting out to establishing it as such is ‘meaningless’."

I disagree, because knowledge (AFAIK -- lol?) includes being aware of the justification, not just the fact that a belief is justifiable.  "Justified belief" not "justifiable".  Having worked out the justification is what makes that which is believed into that which is known, which it previously was not although the justification was still there, unrealized.

"With the concept of knowledge, there are no distinct parts to gather together in which you could then call an act of ‘establishing’. This is what I meant previously when I said that knowledge is something fundamental."

What?  I thought that we agreed at least that knowledge is composed of belief, truth, and ???.  I would call those distinct parts, gathered together ... although I guess you may disagree judging by the next quoted part. 

"In epistemology we have that concept of belief (a position without an set truth value – something dubitable) and the concept of knowledge (a position with a set truth value – that which is indubitable), but “justification” could only have meant starting with knowledge to get back to knowledge (essentially including the same knowledge – as in the example of rationalism) – Thus the elusive concept of “justification” in epistemology clearly does not have anything to do with starting with belief and process it’s way to knowledge - Of which was the epistemological hope vested in “justification”. Justification is not an applicable concept in the epistemological manner of moving belief to the status of knowledge. It is in that sense, meaningless."

Either I have somehow been misunderstanding what you mean by "indubitable" or I believe we have a serious disagreement here.  Doubt, or lack thereof, as well as CAPABILITY for doubt, or lack thereof, is something I would think falls under the category of "BELIEF" and is not related directly to "TRUTH".  That is why I reintroduced "absolute belief" -- because it is what I would consider a synonym for indubitability, and so perhaps you see now why I am so skeptical of your assertion that indubitability guarantees (or reflects?) positive truth value.  IIRC, it was to try to illustrate this disagreement that I recently reintroduced the term.  (Disregarding the older mess.) 

"Not to be annoying but just to take the opportunity on the current clarity and relate this to the ‘hypothetical’ answer of revelation: As there is not a [logically necessary] process in our possession by which to morph that which is dubitable to that which is indubitable, revelation (having that which is indubitable given to you from that which has it) would of course be an answer without a [logically necessary] problem, as simplistic as it may come off after so much ramble."

First, I question whether being unable to conceive doubt of something is really a requirement of knowledge.  Secondly, I question whether indubitable propositional input can be consciously received. 

"Not as an indictment but right when I felt we were nearing some clarity before I noticed you introduced the term “absolute belief” again and I personally think that’s a direct result of having to plant a troubled ambiguity elsewhere as the use of our terms were becoming more isolated."

"I don’t mean to tell you my “inclination” for any other purpose than further clarifying my problem with your position and hoping to inspire a meticulous bout of clarity. (I think around 90% of philosophy is living because of sophistry, so my explanation of inclining to believe your position is ‘sophistry’ isn’t suppose to come off as some insulting, grave accusation.)"

I could be wrong, but that sounds like you're suggesting I included that term just because I was feeling trapped by the dwindling ambiguity in this thread.  I don't know how I could be expected to take that other than as an insulting accusation, unless perhaps it's supposed to be armchair psychology. 

"I understand you’re using this formulation of words to represent your position, so in that sense I understand. But making sense of them together in my mind in consideration of their meaning – we call it your ‘‘reasoning’’ (and your application of it to an example) – I don’t understand."

Just double-checking:  when I wrote "in certain cases preexisting knowedge is NOT necessary for justification", you are telling me that you do not believe you understood what I meant when I put those words in that sentence?  (As opposed to not seeing how it would make sense for me to believe that statement, whose meaning you understood.) 

Sorry for taking so long. Hopefully I can keep this up with my recent schedule.
This isn’t as precise as I want it to be, but I gotta just go with it now for time sake.

I disagree, because knowledge (AFAIK -- lol?) includes being aware of the justification, not just the fact that a belief is justifiable.  "Justified belief" not "justifiable".  Having worked out the justification is what makes that which is believed into that which is known, which it previously was not although the justification was still there, unrealized.

Sorry, what?

What?  I thought that we agreed at least that knowledge is composed of belief, truth, and ???.  I would call those distinct parts, gathered together ... although I guess you may disagree judging by the next quoted part.

   It is the essential “characteristic” of knowledge, or rather, what makes a ‘belief’ knowledge of which I am talking about when I call knowledge fundamental: Certainty (indubitable). Saying knowledge is a mix of ‘truth’ and ‘belief’ is really just something that is displaced in a manner I don’t want to go into articulating (It has something to do with the difference between talking about knowledge as if it were outside of the mind and knowledge being a state one is in. There’s also another thing in my mind to articulate but I don’t want to get into it.) I agreed to the ‘combination’ previously in a sense for avoiding a possibly irrelevant or untimely clarification.
   I wish I could find it but I remember you asking previously something to the effect of how I knew when a belief was true if I didn’t have justification. That reflects exactly what I mean here. The “element” we are really after in epistemology is certainty (what I keep calling indubitability). That is what we are after in calling a belief knowledge. That is what justification was attempting to ‘create’ for a belief – to make it certain (which again, justification could only ‘perform’ by already having certainty in that which implied the belief in question). I’ll throw this out in the event you may find it relevant: After a person presents his case for what he believes justifies a particular belief about reality it would not be nonsensical to ask “are you certain about the things you said to support your case?”.
   In summary, knowledge, that which is certain/indubitable, is fundamental to epistemology - to having knowledge. Perhaps I could say it better as: certainty is fundamental and nothing that doesn’t already require it is [logically/necessarily] available to us to compose (or “build” up to) that state.

Either I have somehow been misunderstanding what you mean by "indubitable" or I believe we have a serious disagreement here.  Doubt, or lack thereof, as well as CAPABILITY for doubt, or lack thereof, is something I would think falls under the category of "BELIEF" and is not related directly to "TRUTH".  That is why I reintroduced "absolute belief" -- because it is what I would consider a synonym for indubitability, and so perhaps you see now why I am so skeptical of your assertion that indubitability guarantees (or reflects?) positive truth value.  IIRC, it was to try to illustrate this disagreement that I recently reintroduced the term.  (Disregarding the older mess.)

   The lack of the capability for doubt is what you categorize under the word belief? Sorry, that’s what I mean by knowledge though. If I accepted your use of that word I’d just specify that I’m talking about the ‘particular’ within your ‘category’ which I would call knowledge.
   Likewise, the capability for doubt is a characteristic of what I mean by the word belief.
   I have no problem if you consider “absolute belief” a synonym for indubitability…
   Realize that you’ll need to make a more articulate distinction by way of definition as this here only appears to find different words to refer to what I’m referring to.

First, I question whether being unable to conceive doubt of something is really a requirement of knowledge.  Secondly, I question whether indubitable propositional input can be consciously received.

   This relates to the previous bit I already addressed on the ‘composition’ of knowledge. I’m not sure how to join them clearly at this point. If you could count the explanations as one when you respond next it would be good.
   First, well, being absolutely certain of something (what I am using as synonymous with ‘being indubitable) is what I find epistemology has been after (certainly a description from Descartes when he introduced his ‘methodological doubt’). So that’s what I’m talking about when I speak of knowledge. I don’t wish to find something possibly incorrect, something as unstable as a ‘mere belief’. If you’re not talking about what I’m talking about, ok.

   Second, ok. I’d ask why but I don’t want to start another issue on the direction of this point (or rather another angle of this debate). Please keep in mind the difference between an analytical disagreement versus one about the particular nature of our reality. It would nice to know which kind of disagreement you are having when you say you disagree. (I would really hope it’s not the latter as that would force us to digress into another argument.)

I could be wrong, but that sounds like you're suggesting I included that term just because I was feeling trapped by the dwindling ambiguity in this thread.  I don't know how I could be expected to take that other than as an insulting accusation, unless perhaps it's supposed to be armchair psychology.

Ok if you feel that way. Not saying it is intentional of course. My purpose in saying it was for clarifying my perception of what’s happening in your position (in hopes you might recognize it but whatever).

Just double-checking:  when I wrote "in certain cases preexisting knowedge is NOT necessary for justification", you are telling me that you do not believe you understood what I meant when I put those words in that sentence?  (As opposed to not seeing how it would make sense for me to believe that statement, whose meaning you understood.)

   I understand the individual words, just not what they’re referring to together. Since my understanding of the meaning of justification obviously makes it literally nonsense. This isn’t an instance of me saying it’s not possible in our particular reality – because, as I’ve said before, this is an analytical issue (Wherein I say what I say about justification on the basis of definition.) So I’m just waiting for some explanation that shows something else to it or where I catch a different meaning your referring to.